Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1887-06-21
PROHIBITION.
4 Few Questions for Our Republican
NeIghbOrs To Answer.
CHARLESTON, w. VA, June 10.

To me EtlttJT g Af hfytNt'F.
The MteHigeRecr has apparently finally
aud everlastingly placed itself on record "A
opposed To prohibition. have watched 1t
carefully since my last letter, and for a
whole acknowledgement and unceas-
ing, without turning to the right hand or
To the lett has either kept straight
standardization course er held Its peace on
the Guesliou-and three-thirds of it's time
II has done the latter. But the Intelligent
GER has AT various times evinCed such an
absorbing interest in the settlement OF the
LIQUOR question, and claims TO talk with
practical knowledge Of the situation,
that again crave the indulgence Of your
self and readers to ask this Journal few
pointed questions. The queries may not
he practical, " because it is generally pre-
sumed that "cranks" can't be practical, "
but il shall be the aim to make the inter
rugations so pointed that though man
be- fool he cannot mistake the language
or the meaning. So here goes.
Will the IateIiig,nccr please inform us:
Whv it is il, Us claimed by the Republi-
car press, pulpit and orators, especially
ahont election times that the Repub
lean marty il the only temper
lnce party, that the consumption Of
Intoxicating liquors and the CON
seuueut evils that flow thereirOm, ill.,
creased nearly, it not quite ten fold, I'M
der the laws made, and the enforcement OF
these laws, during the twenty-five years
this sO-called Temperance party had con-
troll of the Government?
ii the Republican party il temperance
party. and as claimed the party us poor,
deluded "cranks" must vote with to get
prohibition, why did it not shut down the
huuor traffic in the District of Columbia
and the territories when it had absolute
control of these sections, backed by Re
publican lPrOhibitionD President and
Congress? II the business could not he
put down-except by the "swallOw" route
why did the party leaders not make at
least one eflort-iust One-in that direc-
ton, to show their good temperance inten-
tions2
If the Republican party is in favor OF
prohibition, why did 1t refuse 10 say so IN
its last National platform adopted at Chi
cago? Why did it nominate the only
Jim" who had taken the preCautiOn he
fore hand to declare that he was in favor
of distributing the surplus in the treasury
as a perpetual fund among the States for
school purposes, and declaring thus when
he knew. and the mass of the managers
and wire pullers knew, that much Of this
ravenue was derived from the tax on liqu-
ors. and this fund could not he made per-
., Ny.,l 10 IN hta psAr
petuated, and that could not be possible
under enforced. prohibition laws?
Ii the party IL in favor of prohibition,
why was the proposition which pledged the
marty merely to favor submission voted
down in its last Stale convention by over
three to one? Why did the recent confer
ence refuse to favor submission except d
individual members, and not even do
that until resolution had been passed
that nothing thSt was done could have any
binding" on anybody or anything?
Then, on the other hand, if the Repub,
liCan party is not in favor OF prohibition,
how can the hieiiigRctr or any Republican
leader consistently or honestly ask any one
who believes in prohibition to vote that
ticket?
Does it not follow that after considering
the record and declarations of the IRtetiiyeR
Ger and the party that anything either may
say in the future in favor OF prohibition
WILDE but mere bait to catch temperance
suckers? go.
Is it not true that the reason 'prohibi
ton don't prohibit is because the enforce
ment of the law is relegated to men op
posed to its provisions andin sympathy will
its yiolatOrs?
If the Republican party is opposed to
prohibition would il be safe party to en-
trust with doing that which it disapprovec
prohibiting the sale of liquor? -.
These and a thousand and one othel
questions could be asked in the same line
of thought, that are easier asked than ans
yered, but these will suffice. OF course
we have no expectation that the willy II"
teIIigeRccr will deign to notice these quer
les from an anonymous" querlst. II
would not be dignifed, you know. Be
sides, there are. times in the history Of
men and papers when it is good pOllcy u
saw wood and keep quiet. In the hissoIy
of Republicanism in Uncle SANS DOMAIN
that time has ''aTriv."
These queries have nothing to do witt
| who shall vote for the amendment or wht
will oppose it. 1t is to be presumed thai
every temperance man, be he Democrat
Republican, or Mugwump, will vote ioI
il. But the question is, who shall be en-
trusted with enforcing the law If 1t \
adOped9 Would the salOOnkeeper enforct
the law against his own business? Not